A featured contribution from Leadership Perspectives, a curated forum for enterprise technology leaders, nominated by our subscribers and vetted by the CIOApplications Editorial Board.

PanAust

Unraveling Best Practice: A Call For Contextual Solutions

In the realm of professional practice, the term “best practice” often emerges as a guiding beacon, promising optimal outcomes in various fields. However, this straightforward concept is laden with complexities and ambiguities. What exactly constitutes the “best” in “best practice”? Is it about cost efficiency, safety, operational effectiveness, or something else entirely? This article seeks to unravel the intricacies of “best practice," challenging the notion of its universality and exploring its subjective nature. It underscores the importance of contextual understanding in applying these practices, paving the way for a more nuanced, situation-specific approach. By examining the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all mentality and advocating for tailor-made solutions, we can explore what makes a practice "best.”

The simplest way to demonstrate the inherent weakness of “best practice” is by relating it to the classic project management principle: "Fast, Good, or Cheap: Pick Two." This principle reflects the inherent trade-offs in every system—a scenario that achieves two of these objectives usually compromises the third. This intricacy is a critical lens through which the notion of “best practice” should be viewed.

By way of illustration, two mines owned by the same company mining the same commodity, separated by less than 200 km, both recognize the need to conduct damage mapping within the tunnels used to access the underground orebodies. Both mines employ slightly different mining methods, are of different sizes, are of different ages and have different exposures in terms of access frequency. Immediately, it is evident, when reading the purpose statement in the preface of the two procedures, that while there are commonalities, there are many more differences. While the same data are being collected for apparently the same reason, the way in which that data will be used varies significantly.

Mine A – “This procedure is to ensure that all mapping and data collection regarding underground rock mass and ground support damage is undertaken consistently and to the same standard. Standardization is imperative for ensuring quality control, auditable processes are followed, and methods are consistently followed by all persons. Systematic data collection of initial rock mass conditions prior to and during activities provides a fundamental baseline point for any meaningful back analysis and numerical model calibration.”

Mine B – “This document aims to provide geotechnical engineers with a clear guide on the data, process, and frequency of damage mapping at [redacted] underground and surface operations. The document is to aid in a consistent approach by geotechnical personnel to track deterioration, analyze the risk of deteriorating areas and understand the methodology of damage mapping”.

As both procedures revolve around the collection of data, they emphasize consistency, as would be expected. Beyond that, there is very little in common. Mine A will use the data to calibrate models used in the design intended to mitigate damage. Mine B will use the data to track deterioration, plan rehabilitation and mitigate risk.

Rather than debate, which is best, I would suggest that each, if developed with sufficient rigor and with a clear understanding of intent, is the best process for that operation. I would argue against simply bolting them together to try and achieve both goals: “A jack of all trades is a master of none.”

So, if the answer to what best practice is a more discerning, context-sensitive approach that advocates moving away from a one-size-fits-all mentality towards developing practices that are optimized for specific scenarios is needed. The next and obvious question must be, how?

While many systematic approaches could be used to develop Stacey, in an article for the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Hard Rock Safe Safety Conference 2009, titled The Importance of Engineering Design about Safety in Mining, provides a ten-step iterative framework that with some modification, can be abstracted from Geotechnical Engineering to a more generalized form suitable for a wide range of applications.

Problem Definition: Identify and understand the specific challenge or need. This foundational step ensures that the subsequent process is aligned with actual requirements rather than presumed needs. “Start with the end in mind”.

Research and Analysis: Conduct in-depth research to gather all relevant information and understand the broader context of the problem. This step is crucial for informed decision-making and developing a well-grounded approach. "It’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so,"

Concept Development: Brainstorm and explore various potential solutions. Creative thinking and open-mindedness are key in this phase to generate innovative ideas that might not be immediately apparent. "Creativity involves breaking out of expected patterns to look at things differently."

The simplest way to demonstrate the inherent weakness of “best practice” is by relating it to the classic project management principle: "Fast, Good, or Cheap: Pick Two

Preliminary Design and Testing: Develop initial designs and conduct tests to assess feasibility. This early evaluation helps identify potential issues and refine ideas before proceeding to more detailed planning. I cannot stress the need for real-world testing enough, "No plan survives contact with the enemy".

Detailed Design: Refine the chosen solution with specificity, detailing every design aspect. This comprehensive planning is essential for the successful implementation of the practice. "Everyone’s wrong. No matter who you are, everyone is wrong some of the time. All designs are wrong; it’s just a matter of how wrong."

Risk Assessment: Critically evaluate the risks associated with the proposed practice. Understanding and planning for potential challenges is crucial for developing a resilient and sustainable solution. "Risk is like fire: If controlled, it will help you; if uncontrolled, it will rise up and destroy you."

Implementation Planning: Strategize the execution of the practice, considering all logistical aspects. Effective planning at this stage ensures smooth implementation. "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail."

Execution: Put the plan into action. This stage is where the theoretical meets the practical, and the effectiveness of previous steps is tested. "Well done is better than well said."

Monitoring: Continuously observe and assess the effectiveness of the practice. Regular monitoring is vital for understanding the real-world impact and success of the implementation. "What gets measured gets managed."

Adjustment and Iteration: Based on feedback and results, make necessary modifications. The practice should be dynamic, adapting to new insights and changing conditions. "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

In conclusion, the quest for “best practice” in complex environments reveals a fundamental truth: no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Instead, achieving a “fit for purpose” practice requires Insight, Imagination, and Iteration. It involves a willingness to learn, adapt innovative ideas, and engage in the rigorous work of tailoring solutions to specific challenges. By embracing this approach, we can develop practices that are not only effective but also adaptable and responsive to the unique demands of each situation. This mindset fosters innovation and encourages a culture of continuous improvement and collaborative learning.

The articles from these contributors are based on their personal expertise and viewpoints, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of their employers or affiliated organizations.